%0 Journal Article
%T Different indirect immunofluorescence ANA substrate performance in a diagnostic setting of patients with SLE and related disorders: retrospective review and analysis.
%A Choi MY
%A Cui J
%A Costenbader K
%A Rydzewski D
%A Bernhard L
%A Schur P
%J Lupus Sci Med
%V 7
%N 1
%D 11 2020
%M 33154098
%F 4.687
%R 10.1136/lupus-2020-000431
%X Given the increasing relevance of the ANA assay to classification of SLE and the uncertainty and variation surrounding different ANA assay performance, we compared the human epithelial type 2 (HEp-2) to mouse liver (ML) substrate in our local cohort and provided a review of the evidence for their use in autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs).<BR>Electronic health record data (2003-2008) were used to identify patients who had concurrent HEp-2 and ML ANA, and a diagnosis of SLE or other ARDs. We determined the agreement between HEp-2 and ML ANA regarding positivity, titre and pattern, and their predictors. Sensitivity of HEp-2 ANA, ML ANA, repeating HEp-2 ANA, and combining HEp-2 and ML ANA assays was assessed.<BR>There were 961 patients with concurrent HEp-2 and ML ANA samples, including 418 SLEs. There was generally fair to moderate agreement in HEp-2 and ML ANA (kappa (κ)=0.35-0.79), titres (κ=0.34-0.79) and patterns (κ=0.35-0.93). In SLE, the presence of anti-dsDNA antibodies was predictive of ANA agreement between HEp-2 and ML ANA (adjusted OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.45 to 27.20, p=0.01). The ANA sensitivity for most ARDs was highest when the HEp-2 test was repeated, followed by when the HEp-2 and ML ANA were combined and when only the HEp-2 or ML ANAs were used.<BR>In keeping with prior studies, we demonstrated that there was fair to moderate agreement between HEp-2 and ML assays in the largest comparison of HEp-2 and ML as substrates for ANA testing in various ARDs. Furthermore, ANA sensitivity was higher when the HEp-2 assay was repeated rather than combining HEp-2 and ML.